The Ohio Republican doubled-down on his insistence that there must be at least a dollar-per-dollar match between spending reductions and continued borrowing.

“With the cliff behind us, the focus turns to spending,” Boehner said, according to a source in the room who requested anonymity to discuss the private meeting. “The president says he isn’t going to have a debate with us over the debt ceiling. He also says he’s not going to cut spending along with the debt limit hike.”

***

Rep. Dave Camp (R-Mich.) called for spending cuts and entitlement reform in the GOP weekly address on Saturday.

Camp, who chairs the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, said Democrats have not been wiling to put real spending cuts on the table in deficit-reduction negotiations, including the most recent talks to avoid the “fiscal cliff.”

“That position is irresponsible and fails to acknowledge what every family in America already knows – when you have no more money in your account and your credit cards are maxed out, then the spending must stop,” Camp said.

***

[W]hat is Obama going to do when he reveals his budget next month? What is his position going into budget showdowns over the course of his second term? There’s still room for him to push for more taxes, but he has conceded setting the threshold for increased income taxes at $400,000 instead of $250,000. If he wants to avoid new tax increases on 98-99 percent of households, and has already raised $617 billion, there’s an upper limit to how much additional revenue he could propose. Maybe he can come up with another few hundred billion, or approach $800 billion, by getting rid of various deductions and loopholes in the tax code. But there isn’t much room beyond that. The few hundred billion in savings he could theoretically find by tweaking mandatory programs and health care in a way Democrats may be able to swallow would largely be offset by the stimulus spending he still wants to push. It’s harder to argue that intransigent Republicans are standing in the way of deficit reduction when most of his deficit reduction proposal has already been enacted.

***

The truth of course is that it’s Congress that has incurred the debts, not the president. The only reason the president appears to be in the position of being the one seeking the increase is that any sitting administration (its Treasury Department) is the one that actually has to pay the bills. That’s a pretty sweet deal for Congress. They run up the bills, and then, when the president asks them for the money to pay off the bills that they incurred, they say no!

Obama, in my memory, never once pointed this out in 2011, but he has already done so this time around: “I will not have another debate with this Congress over whether or not they should pay the bills that they’ve already racked up through the laws that they passed,” he said on New Year’s night, after the House passed the cliff bill.

He needs to bang this home with an intensity like it’s October in a presidential campaign. First and foremost, he has to get the business world on his side, such that they’re willing at least privately to come down on the Republicans like a ton of bricks. In 2011, these titans had to hedge their positions because most of them were hoping a Republican president would be elected the next year. But Obama is in the captain’s chair for four more years. There’s no political point to such hedging now.

1. Give Obama his way on the debt ceiling, in which case the USA accelerates towards becoming Greece and the GOP become pointless as a political party.
2. Fight but cave, as they have done so often, in which case the USA accelerates towards becoming Greece and the GOP become pointless as a political party.
3. Find a way to throw the steering window out of the window of their car.
4. Convince Obama that they really are crazy (like a fox).

In the long run, options 3 and 4 are not just brave politics but also good economic policy…

For conservatives, all of this should come as a relief. With Mitt Romney’s defeat in November, most recognize that any big deals favoring their positions are impossible. Barack Obama is no Bill Clinton, and there is no hope of a grand center-right bargain with him, let alone the Democratic Senate. Obama, Boehner, and Reid are not going to cut a deal on entitlement reform in the way Clinton, Newt Gingrich, and Trent Lott made a deal on welfare reform in 1996. But to say that there will likely be no big breakthroughs means that the left can expect to be stultified as well.

The Beltway punditocracy will, of course, bemoan gridlock. But the blame is misdirected. Our system of government is designed to impede reforms not backed by a broad majority, and the country remains deeply divided. While most Americans agree that the status quo is unacceptable, there is no consensus on what to do about any major issue. Thus, for the next two years, we should expect Washington to accomplish little.

Unfortunately, all of this is a consequence of the last election. Conservatives had hoped to provide the public a clear contrast on the issues of spending, taxes, and economic growth, and that the electorate would come down definitively on one side or the other. The people declined to do that, and the result of their demurral will be at least two more years of stagnation.

***

Democrats want more revenue so that the entitlement system doesn’t have to be reformed, while Republicans want to reform the entitlement system so that the government doesn’t have to take up more of the economy. This means that doing a good deal of each at the same time would not give both parties what they want—it would give both parties what they are trying to avoid.

A grand bargain with far higher taxes in return for a thoroughly transformed entitlement system would give each party the means it is after but at the cost of the end it is after. That would be a foolish bargain for both of them. They would rather do nothing, and so in fact they have done nearly nothing—reaching agreements to put off deadlines and avert self-inflicted pain but otherwise not changing the basic fiscal circumstances much. These tiny steps are worth taking, but they do not address the underlying problem. Since our deficits and debt grow larger in the meantime, there will always need to be another deadline set, and another crisis scheduled, but it is hard to see why those should turn out much differently, at least as long as either party has the electoral power to stop the other.

At some point, in other words, the fiscal question dividing the parties will be decided by voters. It will likely not happen in some dramatic fashion with one decisive election fought over the future of America, but in the normal and gradual course of our politics. It may even happen by accident—after an election fought mostly on other issues that gives one party or another enough control of the elected branches to advance its fiscal reforms. Until then, both parties will likely continue their defensive efforts, and seek whatever modest incremental steps are possible in an era of divided government.

***

President Obama can make a better argument. Congress has given him an impossible task: to implement a large number of costly public projects with less money than those projects cost. If he cuts spending, then he violates constitutional norms that give Congress the power to determine spending. If he raises revenues by borrowing or trying to tax people, then he violates constitutionals norms that give Congress the power to borrow or tax. In the face of contradictory instructions from Congress, the president can’t avoid choosing—by virtue of his administrative role as collector and disburser of revenues, the president must do something. Where Congress fails to provide him with consistent instructions, he has the discretion to do what he believes is in the public interest. If the economy were to be on the point of collapse, he could cite emergency powers sanctified by tradition as his authority for borrowing beyond the debt ceiling on his own. But a less drastic argument is that the power to resolve conflicting congressional orders is inherent in the president’s administrative role. Indeed, presidents frequently face conflicting statutes as they govern, and they have long enjoyed a great deal of discretion in resolving them…

[F]or government to function, the dysfunctional institutions within it must give way. The president has spoken softly for long enough; now it is time for him to wield the big stick and raise the debt ceiling on his own.

***

We still need to do more to put Americans back to work while also putting this country on a path to pay down its debt. And our economy can’t afford more protracted showdowns or manufactured crises along the way. Because even as our businesses created 2 million new jobs last year – including 168,000 new jobs last month – the messy brinksmanship in Congress made business owners more uncertain and consumers less confident…

And as I said earlier this week, one thing I will not compromise over is whether or not Congress should pay the tab for a bill they’ve already racked up. If Congress refuses to give the United States the ability to pay its bills on time, the consequences for the entire global economy could be catastrophic. The last time Congress threatened this course of action, our entire economy suffered for it. Our families and our businesses cannot afford that dangerous game again.

***

“We blame politics — always [saying] Washington is all dysfunctional,” Brooks said. “They’re responding reasonably efficiently to what the American people want, which is to take the future’s money and spend it on ourselves. … So I do think it starts with the American people.”

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Comments

a couple of months ago I was seraching for that group, when I encountered my first Storm Front(NOT the neo-nazi group, libs!) video. Those videos got me interested in barbershopping. I’ve got a good voice, and if the Lord wants me to use it this way…

Every Federal Dept, EVERY Federal Agency must cut 15% from last years budget. Ever increasing programs cannot be funded along with ever increasing expenditures in existing programs.
Business has done it, it is time the Government, that produces NO REVENUE, rather only confiscates the earnings and profits of others, does it too.
We must if the republic is to survive and its people to maintain a decent standard of living.
ITS THE FAIR AND RIGHT THING TO DO!

You have said nothing yet that would convince anyone you have the slightest understanding of economics. You rank among the worst posters I have seen here.
CW on January 5, 2013 at 10:27 PM

Thanks CW! I WAS aiming for YOUR approval after all. :)

Quality job of dodging in grammar nazi-ing as well! But you know, attack the messenger when you can’t refute the message.

POP’s said its a lie to propose such a thing about the debt limit that reaching it wouldn’t affect our ability to meet our obligations. Asserting than only an idiot with an 85 IQ could ever propose.

I showed that Reagan disagreed with that notion, as the guy who actually has to sit behind the resolute desk and see the real deal rather than armchair quarterbacking with great vitriol from the comfort of their couch.

Does that make Reagan the idiot, liar, ursurping, renegade against America that POP’s posits that it does?

A collaborative effort of 27 pro-gun state and national organizations has formed to fight against any federal gun bans. The group is referring to themselves as the “National Coalition to Stop the Gun Ban” and has announced the formation of the coalition January 3, 1013.

The objective of the coalition is to kill the proposals. Period. It is not to “compromise” by saddling gun owners with restrictions and whining “It was the best we could get.” Nothing less than the complete defeat of the Obama/Biden/Feinstein proposals will suffice;

All coalition members have agreed that “compromise” is not an option; AND

The member organizations launched the Coalition with a coordinated “Open Letter to Members of Congress” and with coordinated press releases and membership alerts.

Genuine so I have to ask: Should we use Reagan for our guidance on everything or just for this argument?
You’re weak.
CW on January 5, 2013 at 10:30 PM

Haha! Of course not! If you did you’d very quickly find yourself doing things that POP’s would deem liberal and treasonous! God knows we can’t do that. :)

And I’m not saying you should follow his argument now. I’m saying that deciding that only a black flag flying anti-American could ever assert such a thing about the debt limit, that reaching it would endanger our ability to service our own debt and economy, is just a bit of a stretch, don’t you think?

When none other than even Saint Reagan asserted the same thing?

But oh it’s all just a lie. To hell with it. There’s NO WAY it could cause us ANY problems. We could service our debt and economy many times over! Or so I heard from POP’s.

i think the debt ceiling stuff is a loser. 1. the congress has authoriazed the spending (via those stupid bills that are passed instead of a real budget)…2 the congress has authorized a debt limit.

those are contradictory if the spending authorized out does the taxes authorized. Congress like all American’s want free stuff.

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

this spending has been authorized by the derelict congress. We may not like Reid, he may be a loathsome person, but he knows how to keep barry flush with money

the other part about debt ceiling is just dumb…the debt is implicit in the two authorizations (spending and revenue)

So congress is derelict and that gives barry the high road to say to the markets…the congress has authorized this..the debts are valid

any other formulation would imply that the exec branch’s spending is unauthorized.

Genuine and still you have shown nothing that would make anyone believe you have an understanding of economics much less grammar. Please do something to change this alarming trend.
CW on January 5, 2013 at 10:46 PM

Genuine,and still you still have shown nothing that would make anyone believe you have an understanding of economics, much less grammar. Please do something to change this alarming trend.
CW on January 5, 2013 at 10:46 PM

There, how’s that? I fixed your grammar and punctuation for you. Help any Mr. Grammar Nazi?

There’s always one or two. I hope you know how fretful we on the Internet are for your dedicated service. :)

You know, the guy who raised the debt limit ceiling every year but one in his 8 years, taking it from under a trilliong to over 3 trillion dollars?

Genuine on January 5, 2013 at 10:13 PM

An oldie, but goodie from my “RWM Wayback Machine”:

Is it not a FACT, JACK, that of the $1.412 trillion in total deficits throughout the Reagan era $784.6 billion dollars of that was SOLELY the fault of the Democrat Congress (when you compare his submitted budgets to those passed by Congress)?

Is it not a FACT, JACK, that total federal revenues doubled from just over $517 billion in 1980 to more than $1 trillion in 1990 and, in constant inflation-adjusted dollars, amounted to a 28% increase in revenue?

Is it not a FACT, JACK, that revenues from individual income taxes climbed from just over $244 billion in 1980 to nearly $467 billion in 1990 and, in inflation-adjusted dollars, amounted to a 25% increase?

Is it not a FACT, JACK, that the Reagan economic boom lasted 92 months without a recession, from November 1982 to July 1990, and was the longest period of sustained growth during peacetime and the second-longest period of sustained growth in US history lasting more than twice as long as the average period of expansions since WWII?

Is it not a FACT, JACK, that the American economy grew by about one-third in real inflation-adjusted terms, which was the equivalent of adding the entire economy of East and West Germany or two-thirds of Japan’s economy to the U.S. economy?

Is it not a FACT, JACK, that the average, highest individual income tax rate of our major economic trading partners during the 1980s and 1990s was 51% while the U.S. was much lower at 33%, which led to the United States creating more than twice as many new jobs as Japan and Western Europe combined?

Is it not a FACT, JACK, that after the landmark Tax Reform Act of 1986, which closed special-interest loopholes in exchange for top marginal rates of 28%, the highest combined federal-state marginal tax rate was about 33% – much lower than it is today?

Is it not a FACT, JACK, that even after the spending spree of the 1980s, the deficit-to-GDP ratio in FY-1989 (Reagan’s last budget) was 2.78% while Obama’s FY-2010 was 8.54%, his FY-2011 was 8.69%, and his FY2012 deficit was 7.06%?

Is it not a FACT, JACK, that, from 1950 to 1973, real economic growth in the U.S. economy averaged 3.54% per year?

Is it not a FACT, JACK, that, from 1973 to 1982, real economic growth in the U.S. economy averaged 1.6% per year?

Is it not a FACT, JACK, that, the Reagan economic boom restored the more usual growth rate as the economy averaged 3.56% in real growth from the beginning of 1983 to the end of 1990?

Is it not a FACT, JACK, that the national debt when Obama came into office was $10,628,881,485,510.23?

Is it not a FACT, JACK, that the national debt on 26 December 2012 was $16,337,860,200,635.06?

Is it not a FACT, JACK, that the national debt has increased by a staggering $5,710,983,151,721.98 – more than all Presidents between Washington and Clinton spent COMBINED and more than Bush spent in EIGHT YEARS?

Is it not a FACT, JACK, that the national debt between 20 January 2009 and 26 December 2012 INCREASED by FIFTY-THREE POINT SEVENTY-ONE PERCENT (53.71%)?

Is it not a FACT, JACK, that the national debt held by the public when Obama came into office was $6,307,310,739,681.66?

Is it not a FACT, JACK, that the national debt held by the public on 26 December 2012 was $11,543,065,624,834.50?

Is it not a FACT, JACK, that the national debt held by the public has increased by a staggering $5,235,754,885,152.84 – more than all Presidents between Washington and Clinton spent COMBINED and more than Bush spent in EIGHT YEARS?

Is it not a FACT, JACK, that the national debt held by the public between 20 January 2009 and 26 December 2012 by EIGHTY-THREE POINT ZERO-ONE PERCENT (83.01%) in 1,437 days??

When Obama can match Reagan for economic growth, then I’ll listen to your arguments. Until then, he is the most fiscally-irresponsible President in the history of the United States.

Is it not a FACT, JACK, that the national debt held by the public has increased by a staggering $5,235,754,885,152.84 – more than all Presidents between Washington and Clinton spent COMBINED and more than Bush spent in EIGHT YEARS?

Furthermore, if you look at Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, it says (in its entirety):

“The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

Notice the absence of the words “President,” “Treasurer,” “Treasury,” “Executive Branch,” and “Executive.” ONLY CONGRESS has the power, by appropriate legislation, to enforce Section 4 (“The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void”).

When Obama can match Reagan for economic growth, then I’ll listen to your arguments. Until then, he is the most fiscally-irresponsible President in the history of the United States.
Resist We Much on January 5, 2013 at 10:53 PM

And you’d be making a quality argument. However, I wasn’t asserting that he’s not.

I was asserting that saying only an 85 IQ treasonous idiot could possibly ever state, believe, or have good reason to say that reaching the debt limit would hinder our ability to meet our financial obligations, is indeed a stupid argument to make.

And that IS a fact, sweetheart. :) Did I say anywhere that the democrats either had or had not been fiscally responsible? Look at that! Nope! I didn’t! :)

So who is Jack? And who are you arguing against here? The imagined liberal ghouls that perpetually dance around your brain distracting your thoughts? Or me?

Could only an 85 IQ treasonous idiot ever in good faith and knowledge propose that reaching the debt ceiling would harm our abilities to meet our obligations?

You didn’t seem to have a copied and pasted figure for that question. :)

Thx. Fortunately, facts are stubborn things. While donkeys, generally, are as stubborn, they usually aren’t stupid enough to stick around and make further arses out of themselves debating them. They just shake their hoofs at the computer screen and bray!

And you’d be making a quality argument. However, I wasn’t asserting that he’s not.

I was asserting that saying only an 85 IQ treasonous idiot could possibly ever state, believe, or have good reason to say that reaching the debt limit would hinder our ability to meet our financial obligations, is indeed a stupid argument to make.

And that IS a fact, sweetheart. :) Did I say anywhere that the democrats either had or had not been fiscally responsible? Look at that! Nope! I didn’t! :)

So who is Jack? And who are you arguing against here? The imagined liberal ghouls that perpetually dance around your brain distracting your thoughts? Or me?

Could only an 85 IQ treasonous idiot ever in good faith and knowledge propose that reaching the debt ceiling would harm our abilities to meet our obligations?

You didn’t seem to have a copied and pasted figure for that question. :)

I’ve been in the private (Public) sector all of my life. I’ve gone through a lot of recessions. I’ve been in the position where I’ve been told to lay off 10% of my employees. Then another 10% on top of that. We struggled, but survived and still provided the essential services.

I don’t see why we could not cut every Goverment budget by 20% and still see the basic servics still performed. If not, can their asses.

I was asserting that saying only an 85 IQ treasonous idiot could possibly ever state, believe, or have good reason to say that reaching the debt limit would hinder our ability to meet our financial obligations, is indeed a stupid argument to make.

And that IS a fact, sweetheart. :) Did I say anywhere that the democrats either had or had not been fiscally responsible? Look at that! Nope! I didn’t! :)

So who is Jack? And who are you arguing against here? The imagined liberal ghouls that perpetually dance around your brain distracting your thoughts? Or me?

Could only an 85 IQ treasonous idiot ever in good faith and knowledge propose that reaching the debt ceiling would harm our abilities to meet our obligations?

You didn’t seem to have a copied and pasted figure for that question. :)

Genuine on January 5, 2013 at 11:05 PM

Um, we won’t default on the debt, dear, since the service is less than the revenue that is taken in on a monthly basis. In fact, the debt service paid so far this FY has been (Dec numbers haven’t been released yet):

October: $12,922,741,407.27
November: $25,068,968,472.99

FY Total: $37,991,709,880.26

Last year, Federal tax revenues equaled a little more than $2.4 trillion. Even though revenues vary by month, the sum is give or take $200 billion. IOW, we have the money to service the debt, pay SS/MC, defence, and keep most of the government open. We don’t have any “obligation” to keep hiring 101 new Federal employees EVERY DAY, as Obama has done since he took office in January 2009.

I imagine that you would just continue you to raise the debt ceiling until the dollar collapses. Did you give your children everything that they wanted until you had to file for bankruptcy, too?

This is ” been there done that ” . The GOP will
cave as usual .
The press will yelp like scalded dogs . Obastardo
will pontificate .
Fat to no chance the house will shut down the gov..
Can you imagine all those looters not getting their
checks ?

It was against this backdrop that Congress decided to confront Reagan in 1987. The Supreme Court had just struck down a key enforcement provision of the 1985 Gramm-Rudman deficit reduction law (which mandated annual cuts), so Congress came up with a new plan: They’d attach a provision to the next debt ceiling increase requiring that the deficit be reduced by a fixed amount over the next five years until it was zeroed out. First up would be a $23 billion cut from the deficit, to go into effect with the fiscal year that would start that fall. Under Congress’ plan, automatic budget cuts would be immediately triggered (half of them defense-related) if Reagan and Congress couldn’t agree on a plan of their own by November 20.

The important thing to remember here is that neither congressional party was nearly as ideologically cohesive in 1987 as it is today. The Democratic ranks were still littered with conservatives from the South and moderate (and even liberal) Republicans were not uncommon. The GOP’s Capitol Hill leaders — Bob Michel in the House and Bob Dole in the Senate — were both pragmatic, deficit-wary conservatives. That is, they were as alarmed by Reagan’s deficits as many Democrats were, and they weren’t averse to cutting a deal to address them, even if it meant raising taxes.

Because of the ideologically blurry lines between the parties, Congress’ vote on the debt ceiling plan truly was a bipartisan affair. In the House, Democrats supported it by a 125-111 margin, while Republicans supported it by a 105-65 spread. In the Senate, 31 Democrats voted yes, and so did 33 Republicans.

The Reagan White House reacted angrily, convinced that Congress was using the dual threat of a debt default (if Reagan vetoed the plan) and deep defense cuts (if Reagan signed the plan but then failed to reach an agreement with Congress on how to cut $23 billion from the deficit) to force the president into a tax hike — something he opposed with the adamance of today’s Republicans. Several of his aides urged him to veto it, and for several days he considered doing just that, until he finally relented and signed it. That is the backdrop for the video Democrats are now circulating.

But the story got even more interesting, because there was still the matter of the $23 billion in immediate deficit reduction mandated by the plan. Democrats, who controlled majorities in both chambers, demanded that new revenue account for at least half of any deal. Reagan refused to even consider this, talks collapsed, and the November 20 deadline — at which point the automatic cuts to defense spending would go into effect — neared. Hardline conservatives in Congress, who were just as loud then as they are now but far less numerous, backed him up. A staring contest ensued, until …the stock market crashed.

The reality is too sprawling for me to get a bumper sticker out of it; I wish I could. The “Reagan did it” thing is being used over and over again here. I’m not sure why it’s here that’s so important; one could pick up a Reagan this or that for lots of things, but the only lever they are trying to get out of it is the debt ceiling. I guess it’s because they have video.